A New Visions Commentary
paper published February 2004 by The National Center for Public
Policy Research. Reprints permitted provided source is credited.

Lionel Tate, the 12-year-old Florida boy
who killed six-year-old playmate Tiffany Eunick, has been released
from prison. He had been convicted of first-degree murder for
what he said was an accident that happened while he was mimicking
professional wrestling moves he saw on television. In the Sunshine
State, such a conviction carries a penalty of life without parole
- even, in this case, for a pre-teen like Tate.

After serving three years in a juvenile
prison, however, Tate was released on a technicality. In agreeing
to plead guilty to second-degree murder, he will now serve a year
of house arrest, ten years of probation, receive counseling and
perform 1,000 hours of community service.

In coverage of the Tate ordeal, the media
gave ample face time to mothers Kathleen Grossett-Tate and Deweese
Eunick-Paul. But there was a glaring omission in the news coverage
that deserves attention. Lionel Tate's father was absent.

I was able to find two - but only two
- articles mentioning Lionel's father. In a March 24, 2001 CNN.com
article, John Tate - who has been divorced from his son's mother
for several years - acknowledged his son needed to be punished.
He believed, however, that a life sentence was too harsh. A January
25, 2004 Miami Herald article devotes only one sentence to the
father, not even mentioning him by name: "Tate's father,
a Mississippi factory worker, has been an intermittent presence
in his son's life, at best, and has been largely absent as others
fought publicly for Lionel Tate's freedom, including ministers
who have volunteered to mentor Tate when he leaves jail (emphasis
added)."

This case involves a single-parent household,
a troubled boy and the reality that the environment in which Lionel
Tate was raised was undoubtedly a factor in how he came about
bringing fatal harm to Tiffany Eunick. And this is not an isolated
case, albeit perhaps the most extreme example. John Tate's "intermittent
presence in his son's life" is arguably the most important
element in the Lionel Tate story, and I find it infuriating that
the press has not zeroed in on it.

The general public's belief in the media's
reflexive impulse to pander to political correctness has been
well documented by best-selling authors such as Bernard Goldberg,
Ann Coulter and William McGowan. In Coloring the News: How Political
Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism, McGowan brilliantly
points out how major news organizations will either downplay or
simply avoid reporting on such topics as black-on-black crime
and black single-parent households so as not to "unfairly
stereotype" minorities.

Save for the two aforementioned articles,
the media's blatant omission of any mention of Tate's father's
absence in his life not only advances the perception of black
people as helpless victims not to be held responsible for their
actions - an unfair and racist stereotype in itself - but it also
further erodes the credibility of professional journalism.

It's a proven fact that children raised
in stable two-parent families are far less likely to become criminals.
This is especially true for black children, one of the most vulnerable
segments of American society.

Lionel Tate will have to live with the
death of a six-year-old child on his conscience for the rest of
his life. While there are no guarantees, it is far less likely
that this would be the case had his father been in the picture
- a fact that John Tate himself must deal with.

What does it say about a man who has sat
on the sidelines for the past three years, while "others
fought publicly" on his son's behalf? It's a shame the media
won't write that story.

###

(Darryn "Dutch" Martin
is a member of the National Advisory Council of the African-American
leadership network Project 21. Comments many be sent to [email protected].)

Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author,
and not necessarily those of Project 21.